patrick.net

Capitalism is (or was) an “economic system in which capital was privately owned and traded; owners of capital got to judge how best to use it, and could draw on the foresight and creative ideas of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers.” The main dynamic of the market system is the relationship between the producer and the consumer. Corporatism, by contrast, brings to the fore the role of the “managerial state,” in which the government takes on an increasingly larger task in telling producers what they should produce and consumers what they should consume. This can be done in many ways, some more implicit and others more aggressive. Corporatism is distinct from socialism, because under corporatism the means of production (capital) remain in private hands. But the private firms are not simply free to respond to market signals. Instead, under a corporatist structure, the government directs firms in the ways in which they should employ their resources, sometimes through moral suasion, but more often through regulation, tax policy, and legal directives. Fascism, which uses coercion, bullying, and demagoguery to control private firms, is an extreme form of corporatism.

hrhjuliet says

But the private firms are not simply free to respond to market signals. Instead, under a corporatist structure, the government directs firms in the ways in which they should employ their resources, sometimes through moral suasion, but more often through regulation, tax policy, and legal directives.

Or the private firms have the government operate on their behalf to provide tax breaks, limit competition, make below market rate loans, buy their product, subsidize their sales, and compel purchase of what they sell.

To quote wikipedia

Corporatism (or corporativism[1] ) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[2] Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[3][4] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".[4]

where the direction of influence is unspecified.

With real estate it's easy to figure out - RPAC ranked first in donations to candidates for every election since 1998 where the open secrets data stops. The Mortgage Bankers Association (the guys who walked away from their headquarters building) and National Association of Home Builders are also significant players.

Capitalism puts the consumer in charge- it is the ultimate form of democracy
Don't like a product don't buy it. Like it buy it.

The only poorly run companies that provide bad products are government sponsored. In a free market they would be driven out

drew_eckhardt says

Or the private firms have the government operate on their behalf to limit competition, make below market rate loans, buy their product, subsidize their sales, and compel purchase of what they sell.

To quote wikipedia

Corporatism (or corporativism[1] ) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[2] Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[3][4] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".[4]

Right. Did you hear that several studies confirmed we are now an oligarchy? Even more specifically, one study said we are acting as a plutocracy. Our constitutional republic is officially in our past.

smaulgld says

Capitalism puts the consumer in charge- it is the ultimate form of democracy

Don't like a product don't buy it. Like it buy it.

The only poorly run companies that provide bad products are government sponsored. In a free market they would be driven out

I think the point of the article is that like in all systems there are variations and subtleties. Capitilsm can be misused, and there is plenty of room for corruption.
For example, if murdering, slavery or destroying the world lifts your profit line, should you be allowed to freely proceed? There always needs to be checks and balances in every system. It's hardly ever black or white.

smaulgld says

Capitalism puts the consumer in charge- it is the ultimate form of democracy

Don't like a product don't buy it. Like it buy it.

The only poorly run companies that provide bad products are government sponsored. In a free market they would be driven out

You surprise and impress me Smaugld.

Strategist says

Capitalism puts the consumer in charge- it is the ultimate form of democracy

If that is the case, then we are responsible for funding monsters. Choose to buy from Monsanto, Phillip Morris, Nestle, Walmart, Chevron, etc. then I guess you choose to fund slave owners, murders, molesters and polluters.

So, it's fair in this moment to say we should stop blaming the politicians are start blaming ourselves for being to lazy, ignorant and too selfish not to buy from corporations that make Nazi's look like good guys.

We have no standards, and completely no sense of moral obligation as consumers, yet we want our politicians to? It would seem that our politicians are a perfect example of the majority; corrupt.

hrhjuliet says

Strategist says

Capitalism puts the consumer in charge- it is the ultimate form of democracy

If that is the case, then we are responsible for funding monsters. Choose to buy from Monsanto, Phillip Morris, Nestle, Walmart, Chevron, etc. then I guess you choose to fund slave owners, murders, molesters and polluters.

So, it's fair in this moment to say we should stop blaming the politicians are start blaming ourselves for being to lazy, ignorant and too selfish not to buy from corporations that make Nazi's look like good guys.

We have no standards, and completely no sense of moral obligation as consumers, yet we want our politicians to? It would seem that our politicians are a perfect example of the majority; corrupt.

Why Walmart in this mix? I just buy some necessities from Walmart that I would buy elsewhere for more. I am eternally grateful to companies like Walmart that increase my standard of living.
Why pay more?

If you would like a short list: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=803
This is the short list. Atrocities aside, our economy is becoming completely and totally dominated by highly centralized monolithic predator corporations that ruthlessly crush all competition and that will stoop to just about anything in order to cut costs. In the future, will we all be working for gigantic communal entities that funnel all of the wealth and economic rewards to a very tiny elite? That sounds very much like how communist China works, and red-blooded Americans should want no part of that. America is supposed to be about free enterprise and competition and working together to build up this country, and Wal-Mart is destroying all of that.

I seriously hope you are being facetious when you ask what is wrong with Wal-Mart. I think there are plenty of articles written on Monsanto and Wal-Mart. I would think the public knows less about the other corporation's atrocities that I listed above. The evils of Monsanto and Walmart are pretty well published and documented.

?w=1250

Shouldn't the garment supplier provide their own fire safety equipment? Is it fair to blame Walmart?
Walmart provides jobs to the most poor people on the planet, and cheap clothes to us. It's a win win situation.

What if the Nazi's owned a market and their goods were cheaper than Wal-Mart? My guess is most Americans would shop at the Nazi owned store. Why? Because they fund and support atrocities and don't give a damn.

American mind: Dead child? Who cares, I saved a buck, it wasn't my kid, so why worry, not my problem. Too big of a problem, just because it's owned by Hitler doesn't mean I shouldn't save a buck.

And we blame the politicians? We are ignorant, selfish and have no morals; I would say our politicians represent the majority well.

hrhjuliet says

What if the Nazi's owned a market and their goods were cheaper than Wal-Mart? My guess is most Americans would shop at the Nazi owned store. Why? Because they fund and support atrocities and don't give a damn.

American mind: Dead child? Who cares, I saved a buck, it wasn't my kid, so why worry, not my problem. Too big of a problem, just because it's owned by Hitler doesn't mean I shouldn't save a buck.

And we blame the politicians? We are ignorant, selfish and have no morals; I would say our politicians represent the majority well.

I wouldn't buy from the Nazis if they gave away everything for free.
Walmart does not hurt anyone. There is just no evidence to support these allegations.

Strategist says

Shouldn't the garment supplier provide their own fire safety equipment? Is it fair to blame Walmart?

Walmart provides jobs to the most poor people on the planet, and cheap clothes to us. It's a win win situation.

You are kidding, right? This was just one of many atrocities. They do not provide jobs to these people, they fund slavery, and ruthlessly keep the slaves in their place and lobby for more jobs being sent overseas were evil and sick practices can continue.

You are either against child labor, exploitation, slavery and unsafe working conditions, or you are for them. You can't honestly believe only American's have the right to the above standards? I would not do business with a factory that hired children or slaves. I don't give a darn where it is.

Strategist says

hrhjuliet says

What if the Nazi's owned a market and their goods were cheaper than Wal-Mart? My guess is most Americans would shop at the Nazi owned store. Why? Because they fund and support atrocities and don't give a damn.

American mind: Dead child? Who cares, I saved a buck, it wasn't my kid, so why worry, not my problem. Too big of a problem, just because it's owned by Hitler doesn't mean I shouldn't save a buck.

And we blame the politicians? We are ignorant, selfish and have no morals; I would say our politicians represent the majority well.

I wouldn't buy from the Nazis if they gave away everything for free.

Walmart does not hurt anyone. There is just no evidence to support these allegations.

There is plenty of evidence, plus convictions, fines and they have admitted to several on the list in a court of law. What more do you need? Are you being facetious, or are you obsessed with validating evil behavior for your own convenience? I can't tell.

hrhjuliet says

Strategist says

Shouldn't the garment supplier provide their own fire safety equipment? Is it fair to blame Walmart?

Walmart provides jobs to the most poor people on the planet, and cheap clothes to us. It's a win win situation.

You are kidding, right? This was just one of many atrocities. They do not provide jobs to these people, they fund slavery, and ruthlessly keep the slaves in their place and lobby for more jobs being sent overseas were evil and sick practices can continue.

You are either against child labor, exploitation, slavery and unsafe working conditions, or you are for them. You can't honestly believe only American's have the right to the above standards? I would not do business with a factory that hired children or slaves. I don't give a darn where it is.

I'll have to reply later. Right now I have to take the dog for her grooming, shop at Costco, pick up my son from a game, and get heart medicine for my father.
I feel like a slave myself.

hrhjuliet says

Atrocities aside, our economy is becoming completely and totally dominated by highly centralized monolithic predator corporations that ruthlessly crush all competition and that will stoop to just about anything in order to cut costs.

The devil is always in the details.

The upper 1% changes denizens faster than any other group.

Even Pikkety removed his head from his ass and now realized the FED is the source of inequality. This after almost a decade of the unequal tax meme.

The IRS has a new report on the 400 taxpayers reporting the highest adjusted gross incomes (AGI) from 1992 to 2006, summarized in the table above. The 6,000 tax returns (400 highest earners x 15 years) from 1992 to 2006 represented 3,305 unique, individual taxpayers, since some taxpayers made it into the top 400 earner group more than one year. The data show that:

1. Of the group of 3,305 top earners from 1992-2006, 2,394 individuals made it into the top 400 only one time during the 15-year period. Those 2,394 one-timers represent 72.44% of the total (3,305), so only 27.56% made it into the top 400 more than once (see columns 2 and 3).

2. Moreover, 2,394 earners made it into the top 400 once (72.44%), and another 408 (12.34%) made it into the top group twice. So 84.78% made it into the top group either once or twice, and only 15.22% made it into the top group more than twice (see columns 2 and 3).

3. There were only 8 taxpayers out of 3,305 (1/4 of 1%) who were in the top 400 in all of the 15 years.

4. In any given year, on average, about 40% of the returns were filed by taxpayers that are not in any of the other 14 years (see columns 4 and 5).

According to the IRS, "the data shown in the table mostly represent a changing group of taxpayers over time, rather than a fixed group of taxpayers." - See more at: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/01/significant-turnover-in-top-400-us.html#sthash.f0wiXzns.dpuf

hrhjuliet says

Strategist says

Capitalism puts the consumer in charge- it is the ultimate form of democracy

If that is the case, then we are responsible for funding monsters. Choose to buy from Monsanto, Phillip Morris, Nestle, Walmart, Chevron, etc. then I guess you choose to fund slave owners, murders, molesters and polluters.

So, it's fair in this moment to say we should stop blaming the politicians are start blaming ourselves for being to lazy, ignorant and too selfish not to buy from corporations that make Nazi's look like good guys.

We have no standards, and completely no sense of moral obligation as consumers, yet we want our politicians to? It would seem that our politicians are a perfect example of the majority; corrupt.

We are responsible to a point
Many of The companies you mention are heavily subsidized by the government and receive special treatment via their lobbying
In many cases companies succeed on the merits and become profitable - nothing wrong with that. But once profitable they seek to pour some of their profits into politcally lobbying for tax breaks subsidies etc

hrhjuliet says

smaulgld says

Capitalism puts the consumer in charge- it is the ultimate form of democracy

Don't like a product don't buy it. Like it buy it.

The only poorly run companies that provide bad products are government sponsored. In a free market they would be driven out

I think the point of the article is that like in all systems there are variations and subtleties. Capitilsm can be misused, and there is plenty of room for corruption.

For example, if murdering, slavery or destroying the world lifts your profit line, should you be allowed to freely proceed? There always needs to be checks and balances in every system. It's hardly ever black or white.

In a pure capitalist system murder and slavery would still be illegal
Under English common contract law one cant contract for an illegal purpose
Illegality aside a free market would cater to the desires, tastes , needs and even whims of the consumer
Capitalism puts the consumer in charge
Corporate cronyism perverts this order and uses government to put the companies in charge

hrhjuliet says

Right. Did you hear that several studies confirmed we are now an oligarchy? Even more specifically, one study said we are acting as a plutocracy.

Yes, although that's an over-simplification which focuses peoples' anger on the top earning percent or decile of individuals with resulting government actions doing nothing to fix the problems with the corporate groups that actually hurt us.

Obama's proposed 30% tax on "millionaires" might feel good but will have no effect on government Qualified Mortgage guidelines pushing housing costs towards 43% of gross income which is the cut-off for the Government Sponsored Enterprises assuming mortgage default risk while leaving profits for the originators, loan servicers, and real estate agents.

There were several reasons for the house bubble and capital was allocated to this, but the fault is shared.

The public may not know it, but the capital for mortgages was almost unlimited from worldwide sources, not banks. MBS=mortgage backed securities were sold worldwide. The reason they are marketable is an income stream is something many people will buy.

It's surprising to many just how popular income streams are, but as interest rates were kept low, MBS were more attractive worldwide. This source of capital far exceeds what deposits (capital) banks had to lend as mortgages. Hence, there was a lot of money chasing American mortgages.

Fees banks and others made were giant profit sources. Imagine each house sale has $10,000 in fees and whatnot, you see another incentive for people to pump up this business. In contrast, stock purchase commissions have fallen to $2 (my vanguard brokerage commission). Which would you rather be selling to the public?

Govt. were enablers of this by promoting home ownership as the goal for our society. Lenders who avoided bad areas or risky people were sued as "racist", e.g. Citibank in Chicago by Obama as community activist. What happened eventually to Citi?

The govt. meddling in real estate and mortgage practices led to this fiasco and of course now govt. wants to try to "fix" the problem it caused. Govt. also took our money to bail out the fools at Citi and other banks.

hrhjuliet says

What if the Nazi's owned a market and their goods were cheaper than Wal-Mart? My guess is most Americans would shop at the Nazi owned store. Why? Because they fund and support atrocities and don't give a damn.

American mind: Dead child? Who cares, I saved a buck, it wasn't my kid, so why worry, not my problem. Too big of a problem, just because it's owned by Hitler doesn't mean I shouldn't save a buck.

And we blame the politicians? We are ignorant, selfish and have no morals; I would say our politicians represent the majority well.

In a truly free market alternatives would exist including media outlets not licensed by the government so companies could expose the ill deeds of an evil competitor.

We are responsible for what we buy. I choose to buy from ethical companies, fair trade and made in America, and it takes work and research, but I want to be part of a better world for everyone, so I feel it's worth it. Our men and women in the military are prepared to die for the moral ideals of our country and all I am doing is a little research and restraining my desires to buy things I don't need. Mine barely qualifies as a sacrifice, and yet people seem to think my choice to be responsible is an unreasonable burden.

Americans have become gluttonous, ignorant and self-entitled. If we truly want a better world, we need to start taking some personal responsibility with our part we play in the problems.

This is also a part of healthy capitalism. I am simply taking part in one of it's positive attributes.

re: Walmart.
Walmart is a great store, but you don't have to shop there.
Depending on your location and tastes, you can shop at kmart, sears, target or online from Amazon.
In some places you can go to Fred Meyer.
Walmart sources its stuff from the same suppliers as the rest of them, which is why brand names are so profitable for the brand.
I remember the same exact shirt factory in Guam owned by a Chinese made the button down shirts for Lands End and Brooks Brothers. The differnce? In San Francisco the Brooks Bros. shirt was $50+ and in Lands End catalog it was $25.

The above companies are also on the bad list for dealing with corrupt governments and factories that use child labor. The difference with Wal-Mart is that their list of atrocities goes on and on, and in about every category you can think of. I boycott all of the above, but for people just starting the boycott process I do recommend they start with the ten worst and add as they feel comfortable and get used it.

I started out with twenty corporations with terrible human rights activity and then started adding companies with terrible environmental records. I now only shop fair trade, organic, no GMO and American made. I also buy from companies that deal with countries with similar working standards. I had to start small first, and then work my way up to being weaned off our affluenza.

the free market will produce better alternative non gmo organic products if the government wasnt in the organic labeling business
Eventually only the largest corps will be able to meet the govt labelling standards
All other products by competitors will be outlawed
Walmart is getting into the organic market surely they will have govt support
Ive never been inside a walmart

It was best when outside groups did the labeling, but I still appreciate having labels. We have a right to know.

hrhjuliet says

It was best when outside groups did the labeling, but I still appreciate having labels. We have a right to know.

We have a right to know but do you trust who is telling you what you know? Are they beholden to special interests that don't have ours in mind?

A government label makes people lazy- they see the label and think it's been properly vetted.
Think about the FDIC sticker you see in a bank's window. It means your money is safe, right?

hrhjuliet says

Strategist says

Shouldn't the garment supplier provide their own fire safety equipment? Is it fair to blame Walmart?

Walmart provides jobs to the most poor people on the planet, and cheap clothes to us. It's a win win situation.

You are kidding, right? This was just one of many atrocities. They do not provide jobs to these people, they fund slavery, and ruthlessly keep the slaves in their place and lobby for more jobs being sent overseas were evil and sick practices can continue.

You are either against child labor, exploitation, slavery and unsafe working conditions, or you are for them. You can't honestly believe only American's have the right to the above standards? I would not do business with a factory that hired children or slaves. I don't give a darn where it is.

@hrhjuliet
Hrhjuliet, we are all against child labor, slavery, exploitation etc.
Take the example of an impoverished country like Bangladesh where millions of families have literally nothing. They can barely survive, least of all send their children to schools.
What is the best way of helping them? You tell me?

Strategist says

What is the best way of helping them? You tell me?

The Free Market.

10 or 15 years ago the average per ca pita income in China was $500 today it is $7000

This why the world does not hunt and gather to survive today. It is the ONLY, REAL way that things improve. Anything to the contrary is just posturing.

indigenous says

Strategist says

What is the best way of helping them? You tell me?

The Free Market.

10 or 15 years ago the average per ca pita income in China was $500 today it is $7000

This why the world does not hunt and gather to survive today. It is the ONLY, REAL way that things improve. Anything to the contrary is just posturing.

Yes, free markets, which is how we became the richest country in the planet.
The formula works, it works.
How do we convince hrhjuliet?

Strategist says

How do we convince hrhjuliet?

You can't she is sequestered to her own ideas. She has already indicated that the Americans are not educated. The first thing that has to occur in learning something is to know that you do not know. She will never rise to this level nor will many here on Patnet.

indigenous says

Strategist says

How do we convince hrhjuliet?

You can't she is sequestered to her own ideas. She has already indicated that the Americans are not educated. The first thing that has to occur in learning something is to know that you do not know. She will never rise to this level nor will many here on Patnet.

I kinda like her, she is fun, but dead wrong very often.
Maybe that's what makes Patnet interesting.

Strategist says

I kinda like her, she is fun, but dead wrong very often.

Maybe that's what makes Patnet interesting.

Agreed but consider the environment she comes from

Okay, Free Market Worshippers-- Let's just talk about hrhjuliet as if she isn't actually reading this thread. And even though she is so wrong, that tutu thing is so darn cute! Could you BE more patronizing?

Maybe our self-identification with being a part of the richest country isn't the summit of our measly lives. Maybe holding corporations Accountable for their ignoring the needs of the earth, animals, plants, air, water, and humans is not such a bad idea after all.

Where does integrity come into play in this free-market? If the free market is so awesome, why are so many people struggling and unhappy with the way things are?

And is America really rich anymore? If so, why do we have such huge debt?

Lack of integrity exists under all economic systems
Was there integrity under Stalin's communism?
Hitler's national socialism?
Having governments hold corporations accountable is a joke when they are partners . The too big too fail banks should be an example of how well the government holds corporations accountable.
America's debt is not a function of a capitalist society but rather one of a massive warfare/welfare domestic and foreign interventionist state.

Corporatism is not capitalism

Free markets raise the standards of living of everyone and while doing so create wealth inequality. The poorest in America today, however, live better than the 1% 100 years ago. They live longer have cars, travel on planes, use cell phone etc.
The cry wil rise "but we have made technological advances - you can't compare then to now!"
The advances have almost exclusively come from free market innovation. Any government "innovation" was funded from the tax profits of private companies.

Cuba and Venezuela may have no wealth inequality but they have no wealth either

What Smaulgld said.

I do think Hrhjuliet is right, most Americans are poorly educated compared to many parts of even China. This is because of teacher unions and general government intervention.

The British are in even worse shape when it comes to government intervention.

I also think we are generally more arrogant because of our perceived value but the British can be even more arrogant. But both countries get this from the accomplishments of the free market. Certainly not because of some natural superiority.

Americans are smarter than most regarding technology and manufacturing (the US manufacturers more than any other country by far) which is why people come here from around the word to get educated.

smaulgld says

Free markets raise the standards of living of everyone and while doing so create wealth inequality. The poorest in America today, however, live better than the 1% 100 years ago. They live longer have cars, travel on planes, use cell phone etc.

The cry wil rise "but we have made technological advances - you can't compare then to now!"

The advances have almost exclusively come from free market innovation. Any government "innovation" was funded from the tax profits of private companies.

Cuba and Venezuela may have no wealth inequality but they have no wealth either

Could not have said it better.

Indiana Jones says

Okay, Free Market Worshippers-- Let's just talk about hrhjuliet as if she isn't actually reading this thread. And even though she is so wrong, that tutu thing is so darn cute! Could you BE more patronizing?

Maybe our self-identification with being a part of the richest country isn't the summit of our measly lives. Maybe holding corporations Accountable for their ignoring the needs of the earth, animals, plants, air, water, and humans is not such a bad idea after all.

Where does integrity come into play in this free-market? If the free market is so awesome, why are so many people struggling and unhappy with the way things are?

And is America really rich anymore? If so, why do we have such huge debt?

We want corporations, but we rightfully demand they be ethical, moral, environment conscious, and honest. They are not there yet, but public pressure demanding they be so is slowly making a difference. Nothing happens overnight, it's just a matter of time and public pressure.

I am not wrong, I just have a different opinion than you. I am not against the "free market" I am for it, as many threads here have shown. A complaint was made that people can't trust labels because some of them are monitored by the government, well do you trust corporations to tell the truth any more than the government? If you do, you may want to reevaluate. If we do live in an oligarchy or plutocracy, like the new studies suggest, then you need to accept that these corporations are the government.

Second, you say the media and other knowlegable sources would help educate the public on the corporations, but what good would it do if people do absolutely nothing with the knowledge. The fact that Wal-Mart committed these atrocities is not in question, yet most are offended at the very idea of boycotting them. What do they need to do before people find them offensive?

I never even suggested the government add controls, I simply suggested we the people boycott stores that have been found to participate, and are in partnership with countries and businesses that commit atrocities.

People use the validation that in the human rights portion of the wrong doing that they is okay because they are job makers. You are using the exact same arguments that Stalin used when he put thousands into new jobs (work camps and political camps) that Hitler originally used in his "work" camps, almost identical arguments from the people of the South against the North in pre-civil war America and the creepy validation from the people of South Africa during apartheid. In many of these cases the wrong doing could have ceased by a strong boycott, but instead they escalated into violence and eventually war.

Keep being comforted by your "job maker" excuse. It is much easier and more comforting to blame politicians or expect the government to fix it. All I was suggesting was that we the people take individual responsibility for our purchasing power. But that is the problem isn't it? There would not have been a Nazi Germany without the help of the citizens who kept validating their behavior and telling themselves that it's not as bad as all those extremists say. They were Hitler's greatest power. I think the hardest thing for people to accept is personal responsibility. The slave owners in America didn't believe they were for slavery either. The argument that they were good slave owners (and the Southerners used the term employers) and that the slaves would never survive without them was the most popular argument of the time. Some people can only accept what keeps their life comfortable.